linux-kernel - Path length and filename length linux deficiency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200331233432.372f2f68@ithnet.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:34:32 +0200
From:   Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml@...net.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Path length and filename length linux deficiency

Hello all,

today I want to raise a topic that seems to have vanished completely since
decades. It's the length limits of pathnames and filenames. One may wonder why
to jump onto such a seemingly dead horse. But in fact it is not. We are in a
world of continous growth of file services for clouds and other user space
apps. And in this world a friend of mine tried to do something very simple:
copying a file tree  ...  from a w*ndows file service to a linux server. And
guess what: it does not work out.
And the simple reason: the maximum path length in w*ndows systems is 32767,
whereas linux (and POSIX) talk of a maximum of 4096 bytes. It is obvious then
that linux is effectivly unable to hold a deep tree - whereas w*ndows can.
Since I do know for sure it does not work, what are the true reasons?
How can we completely drop these limits in linux (using a capable fs of
course)?
I already asked the samba list and was confirmed that the problem is known and
that there is no easy solution for it.
-- 
Regards,
Stephan